1951-04-11

Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to welcome today from the floor of the house the principal, Mr. Jean-Louis Cloutier, and students of the Hawkesbury French high school, now sitting in the ladies gallery.


Mr. Graydon:: They look like Conservatives.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORT AND AUDITORS' REPORT TO RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of
the house I wish to move:
That the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31. 1950, tabled on March 19, 1951, and the auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1950, In respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled on March 20, 1951, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the budgets of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, for the year 1951.



REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORTS, BUDGETS AND CERTAIN ESTIMATES TO RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE

Lionel Chevrier: By leave of the house I wish to move:
That the annual reports for 1950 of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, the Canadian National Railways securities trust, and auditors' report to parliament in respect to the Canadian National railway system and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, tabled on April 3. 1951, and the budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, for 1951, tabled this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following items of estimates for 1951-52:
Vote 493-Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-deficit:
Vote 495-Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-deficit;
Vote 501-Maritime Freight Rates Act-payment of twenty per cent reduction in tariff of tolls to Canadian National Railways and other railways operating in territory fixed by the act,
And that the resolution passed by the house on March 12, 1951, referring certain estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded in so far as the said resolution relates to votes Nos. 493, 495 and 501.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Cleaver be substituted for that of Mr. Clark on the special committee on railways and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abboit (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 195, to amend the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The bill provides for three
amendments to the act. The first amends the definition of a conditional sale contract. The other two relate to a tightening up of the enforcement provisions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION


Lionel Chevrier: for leave to introduce Bill No. 196, respecting the Hamilton harbour commissioners.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Lionel Chevrier: The object of this bill is to
amend the Hamilton Harbour Commission Act in order to authorize the commission to purchase and operate an amusement park adjacent to their lands. It has the approval

Questions
of the commission and, I understand, the concurrence of city council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many radio licences have been issued by the Department of Transport, in each province, in each of the past five years?
2.	How many radio owners have been issued summons because of failure to purchase licences in each of the past five years, by provinces?
3.	Are the fines assessed paid into the Department of Transport?
4.	If so, what do these fines amount to in each of the provinces, during each of the last five years?
5.	How many radio licence inspectors are there in Canada?
6.	What is the total salary paid to radio inspectors in each of the last five years?
7.	How many employees are there employed in offices of radio inspectors, and what were their total salaries in each of the last five years?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1. Answered in statement below.
2. Answered in statement below.
3.	No. They are credited to the Receiver General of Canada.
4.	Answered in statement below.
5.	78 radio inspectors who perform radio receiving licence inspection as required as part of their general inspection and radio interference investigation duties.
6. 1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	(To Feb. 28)-$123,630.91 7. 109. (Salaries)	$154,030.53	$203,321.05	$221,263.49	$205,324	.381946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	(To Feb. 28>$163,790.91	$199,271.53	$253,196.05	$278,928.49	$263,127	.381. Newfoundland 	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50 21,323 11,152	1950-51 (To Feb. 28>
43,358 10,745Prince Edward Island 10,626	12,173	11,825	Nova Scotia 	
87,043	91,940	99,477	102,927	104,745New Brunswick . .	. . . . 57,159	68,484	75,559	76,581	74,057Quebec 	
491,823	534,797	567,257	616,200	629,899Ontario 	
628,075	677,299	704,993	715,290	702,112Manitoba 	
108,985	118,823	126,586	135,582	124,033Saskatchewan ...	
129,447	135,095	155,177	164,751	163,150Alberta 	
125,289	131,849	134,666	147,132	154,997British Columbia	. . .. 168,950	173,097	181,821	186,108	186,240Yukon 	
427	470	438	399	4132. Newfoundland . ..	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51 (To Feb. 28>
303Prince Edward Island. 139	178	55	295	Nova Scotia 	. ... 842	679	1,103	975	769New Brunswick .	.. .. 122	290	352	224	287Quebec 	. ... 1,968	2,115	1,923	1,809	1,943Ontario 	.... 10,125	8,580	8,386	7,524	6,515Manitoba 	.... 217	364	418	667	605Saskatchewan ...	.... 516	581	439	384	355Alberta 	.... 960	648	656	603	691British Columbia	.... 208	248	221	412	493
(Mr. Chevrier.]

Questions
4.	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51 (To Feb. 28)$	$	$	$	$ 176.00Prince Edward Island.	209.00	280.00	102.00	544.00	Nova Scotia 	2,556.50	1,779.50	2,975.00	2,504.00	1,983.50New Brunswick 	508.00	1,318.50	1,637.00	822.00	655.00Quebec 	4,179.55	3,886.75	4,446.50	3,301.50	1,465.50Ontario 	26,238.70	19,976.60	20,681.40	18,486.75	9,554.50Manitoba 	675.00	1,372.00	1,244.50	2,563.00	1,477.00Saskatchewan 	1,896.00	2,164.00	1,780.00	1,668.50	1,305.00Alberta 	3,767.00	2,526.00	2,137.50	2,148.00	1,055.00British Columbia ....	448.00	579.00	674.00	1,157.00	541.50


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS-QUESTIONNAIRES
Mr. Fulton:: How many questionnaires have been issued and demands for information made by the dominion bureau of statistics, including those made under its general powers to require returns, or as agent of any department or agency of government, or under any special statute, during the twelve months ended February 28, 1951?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 237.


BACON AND OTHER PORK PRODUCTS
Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	What was the total amount of bacon shipped to Great Britain during the year 1950?
2 Has any bacon been shipped to Great Britain during the months of January, February and March, 1951?
3.	If so, how many pounds?
4.	Have any pork products been imported from the United States since restrictions were lifted?
5.	If so, how many pounds?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	72,340,300 pounds.
2.	Yes.
3.	January, 1951, 1,759,500 pounds; February, 1951, 128,000 pounds; March, 1951, not yet available.
4.	Yes.
5.	January,	February,
	1951.	1951.
	Pounds	Pounds
Pork, fresh ..		 509,976	1,518,916
Bacon, hams	and	
other cured	pork 5,397	265
Pork, barrelled in		
brine 	
335,000	525,800Figures for	March, 1951,	are not yet
available.
Pork products, except as above, are not separately classified in trade statistics.


H.M.C.S. &quot;MAGNIFICENT&quot;    OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST
Mr. Balcer:: 1 What was the total operating and maintenance cost of H.M.C.S. Magnificent for the year 1950?
2.	What was the total operating and maintenance cost of the two carrier air groups for the year 1950?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	For fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, $3,191,700.
2.	For fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, $3,359,368.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
Léon Balcer: What was the complement of officers and men in the Royal Canadian Navy at (a) December 31, 1949; (b) December 31, 1950?


Mr. Blanchette:: Actual strength: (a) 31st December, 1949, 9,210; (b) 31st December, 1950, 10,199.


LAURIER HOUSE
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the administration of Laurier House, in the city of Ottawa, and of an account to be set up in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the Mackenzie King trust account to which shall be credited the sum of $225,000 given by the will of the late the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, P.C., O.M., to the government of Canada, to be expended for the purposes of such administration.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Proposed Legislation KINGSMERE PARK

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the administration of Kingsmere park by the federal district commission and the management and control of the buildings in the park and the yards, orchards and appurtenances thereto by the Minister of Public Works in accordance with the will of the late the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, P.C., O.M., with authority in the governor in council to set aside any part of the park as a country home for the holder of the office of prime minister, such park to be deemed included in the properties described in the schedule to the Prime Minister's Residence Act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to increase the salaries of judges, other than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada: to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario and of the Superior Court of Quebec; and to provide certain adjustments as to pensions of judges and widows of judges.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order in connection with the wording of this resolution. I feel that I should raise the point of order now lest I be told at a later stage of the debate that I should have raised it at this time. I am quite prepared that my point of order should be considered and ruled upon at a later stage, but I would like Your Honour to consider citations 433, 436, 439 and others in Beauchesne, third edition, which have to do with a resolution preceding a money bill.
It seems to me quite clear from these citations that while the resolution preceding a money bill does not need to disclose all the details in the bill, it should set a limit on the amount of money being asked for by the crown. Those citations and others indicate that the debate at the resolution stage is on a certain expenditure asked for by the crown. There is one exception indicated,

which suggests that if no ceiling is placed on the amount, private members may move to increase it when the house is in committee of the whole on the bill. Certainly that is not my purpose in connection with this resolution, but it does seem to me that the government is getting a bit careless in connection with these resolutions and is bringing in too many of them without fixing the maximum amount that may be included in the bill.
Through the years I have made quite a study of this matter, and I have gone over it again in the last day or so. As one goes back through the years it appears that the practice was very well established, until about four or five years ago, that every resolution preceding a money bill spelled out the total amount of money that would be required under that bill. The resolution introduced by the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he was minister of justice, changing the provisions with regard to the pensions of judges so that they could award a portion of their pensions to their widows, spelled out those provisions. So it has been with old age pensions and family allowances. This morning in the library I went back to the records of 1867, 1872 and so on, and down through the years the practice has been very definite. I submit that the government is getting away from the practice of the house and the spirit of the citations to which I have referred when resolutions are brought down in this way.
On a point of privilege I might also express my regret that while the resolution does not tell us the maximum amount involved in this bill, the press seems to have that information. That is another point about which I shall not say more now, but I should like to suggest that by the time this matter reaches another stage we might have consideration by Your Honour as to whether resolutions in this blank cheque form are regular.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall take into consideration what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he has stated, resolutions in a form similar to this have been allowed to stand in the past, and in this case I shall allow this resolution to stand. However, as I stated above, I shall give consideration to what he has said. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to table a return, concerning butter in storage, to an order of the house, passed on March 5?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I should say to the hon. member that there has been some delay because of the fact that there are several hundred of these persons or companies across Canada, from Vancouver to Halifax, to whom butter has been delivered; and the return was completed only today. I signed it a few minutes ago, and I should think it will be tabled tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary assistant, of which I gave notice before coming into the chamber.
(Translation):
My question arises from a news item in Le Soleil of Quebec, of April 7 last, stating that the Hollinger North Shore Company, which is developing the north shore district, intends to seek authority from the government to bring refugees to Canada and put them to work in Ungava and on the north shore. I would like to know if there is any truth in that report.
If it is true, would the representative of the Department of Labour tell me whether the usual steps have been taken to inform the unemployed-especially in adjacent counties on the north shore and in Charle-voix-Montmorency county, through the unemployment insurance commission's offices at La Malbaie and Montmorency-that work is available in that district?


Mr. Paul E. Cole (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. However, in the few moments that have elapsed since I received his memorandum, I have procured only preliminary information which does not enable me to give him the answer he has a
Inquiries of the Ministry right to expect. But I can promise him more complete information later this afternoon or tomorrow at the latest.
(Text):



QUESTION AS TO RECALL OF GENERAL MACARTHUR FROM COMMAND OF UNITED NATIONS TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to ask the minister of external affairs a question which he may see fit to answer today or at some other time. There seems to be some confusion as to the recall of General MacArthur, arising out of the presidential authority to recall him, in view of the fact that General MacArthur has been the commander of the United Nations forces and we are one of the nations supplying those forces. The question arises whether or not Canada should have been consulted. Would the minister care to make a statement now, or perhaps tomorrow?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire at this time, or even tomorrow, to comment on the nature of the action taken by the President of the United States in this matter. I can, however, for the benefit of the hon. member and the house, briefly outline the procedure under which that action was taken.
When the security council, by its resolution of July 7, 1950, established a unified command to conduct the military operations in Korea, it requested the United States to designate the commander of the United Nations forces there. In response to this request of the security council, President Truman the following day designated General MacArthur as the commanding general of the military forces placed by the members of the United Nations under the unified command. I understand that the President of the United States has now decided that the conduct of the military operations in Korea should be entrusted to other hands, and, acting under the mandate given to him by the security council resolution to which I have referred, has appointed General Ridgway as the United Nations commander in place of General MacArthur. This decision is clearly one which falls within the sphere of authority which has been given to the President of the United States by the United Nations itself.



QUESTION AS TO REDUCTION OF PRICE AS A RESULT OF BUDGET PROVISIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which minister I

Cost of Living
should address this question, but perhaps the Minister of Justice will take notice of it. It has to do with the announcement last night in the budget address that there would be a decrease in the taxation on candy. According to the newspapers the manufacturers are not going to decrease the price of candy. Will the minister see that justice is done in this respect?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad to take my hon. friend's question as notice and see what can be done along the lines he suggests.



COST OF LIVING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, in asking for some measure of price control at this time, there is no need for me to speak at any length, and I shall not do so. The arguments have been presented, the figures have been placed on the record, and almost everything has been said that can be said on behalf of our party. I particularly endorse what has been said concerning the stand of my party on the matter. I might read two or three clauses that were adopted at the convention of the party in Vancouver in 1950. They are:
1.	The reimposition of price controls on the necessities of life, with an adequate subsidy program where necessary;
2.	The prevention of any further general increase in rents;
3.	Effective action to halt price fixing and other restrictive practices by monopolies and combines.
We had an unfortunate experience some time previously with the actions of these monopolies and combines. All I wish to do here is to endorse that stand, as I have done on every opportunity which has arisen.
So much for the record outside the house. Inside the house we have, since 1946, consistently followed this same policy, in that we have opposed every move of this government to abandon price and rent controls, subsidies and the excess profits tax. Since the abandonment of these measures, we have continued to press for their reimposition. I think it will be acknowledged by all parties that in that early struggle we stood alone. We are glad that the situation has changed now. We welcome the support which we are receiving from other quarters. Personally, I

did not expect that the leader of the Conservative opposition would ever move the amendment which he did the other day. It is true that he moved it with some reservations, but he did move it, as he said, in consideration of the important crisis which had arisen.
The hardships due to the high cost of living have increased progressively through the years with the constant rise in the price of commodities. The whole country has now become price conscious, and well it might- because people have had a good deal of experience with high costs, and no little difficulty

when we have a price index as of March 1 of 179-7. I do not know to what extent it has increased since, but that was an increase of \\ points over the corresponding date of the month before.
The demand for action to call a halt in this progressive rise of prices has become articulate-nay, has become almost vociferous throughout the whole country. Organizations of the people everywhere have joined their voices to the chorus: the farmer, labour, the consumer, and individuals in their thousands. What then, you might ask, are we waiting for? Just for this government, which knows so much better, which is so much wiser than the millions of people whom it represents.
The price rise is at the moment the most unsettling factor in our whole economy. It has prepared the way for another round of demands for wage and salary rises, for increased pensions and the like. It strikes hardest at those who are least able to cope with it. Among those one might mention the unorganized workers, old age pensioners, and those on small fixed incomes, such as retired civil servants.
While the high cost of living ruins the individual, its partner and twin, inflation, is ruining the nation. Inflation in the domestic field is confiscation of a real sort: confiscation in the matter of bonds, insurance, and cash. In its effect upon the defence program, it is the great saboteur. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is taking certain measures in an effort to curb it. Let us hope they will be successful. They may be in certain directions, but in others I think the minister's announcements will, on balance, increase inflation, or, where there is any deflation as a result, it will be at the expense of a lower standard of living on the part of the people.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) told us the other day, in his speech in this debate, that there was not a shortage of civilian goods. There is of course a shortage of many materials that go into supplies for defence preparations. I wonder if the minister, in making his statement, had thought of newsprint, or had included the matter of

newsprint. There seems to be a shortage of that commodity. I saw some report to the effect that the President of France had talked that matter over with some of the Canadian authorities, saying that his country would be glad to get some newsprint from Canada. Strange to say, I had thought of this point in connection with the matter of price control. I had thought of it in the matter of our potential shortage not only of defence goods but of civilian goods. In discussing these potential shortages, or the rising of prices, or the need for economy, I would draw attention to a form of price rise that I think has not been previously mentioned in this house. I refer to an absurd situation which arose often during the last war, when large advertisers continued advertising products which were in short supply and when none or very few of them were available to the public. Many advertisements made no claim even to having any of the goods in stock, but, no doubt at great expense, they filled up our national magazines with what I would call phony and futile advertising. I say "futile" so far as the public is concerned, because there was certainly some method in the madness, or the apparent madness, of the people who were doing the advertising.
These corporations and manufacturers were by that method evading heavy payment of income tax and wasting some of our much-needed natural resources. They contributed to the spoliation of our forests for unnecessary purposes, and restricted the supply of paper which might have been used for a more genuine activity. Surely it should not be impossible to evolve an amendment to the income tax law which would limit the percentage of costs which these firms may charge to advertising as an exemption. I should have asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about this, but it is possible that there are some such restrictions now. If so, I think they should be tightened in that respect so that these people may not go on fooling the public in this particular manner. It might put an end to this present situation, which virtually means that the public is, in a manner,, subsidizing the operations of these corporations. As the price of paper goes up, the price of advertising must of necessity go up correspondingly. Since the cost of advertising ultimately must be added to the cost of the goods, I submit that this is a place where price control as such might be employed. When the goods are scarce, or when there are virtually no goods to which this extra cost can be applied, how much greater must be the added cost under those circumstances. I urge the government to give some consideration to this matter, to put an end to this phony 80709-122
Cost of Living
advertising, to make it unprofitable, and at the same time to bring down, even if only a little, the prices of the goods which are so advertised.
There is a kindred matter which I think I should mention here, because it is relevant to the same subject about which I have been talking, namely dishonest advertising. I refer to the liquor advertising which one finds in our magazines and periodicals. The last time -and the only other time-that I brought this matter up I was told that it was entirely within provincial jurisdiction. I do not here enter this argument on a moral basis. I am not for the moment discussing the question whether or not liquor should be advertised. I am, however, stating that under the laws of certain of the provinces, liquor advertising as such is forbidden. Yet in our magazines we find some more of this phony advertising, as I call it-phony, but perhaps in this case not futile from the manufacturers' point of view, because the advertising, as we all know, is cleverly done. You pick up your paper and you do not see any direct advertising of any particular brand of liquor; for that is specifically forbidden. But you find a pretty picture; you find the name of a prominent brewer or distiller. You find a picture which appeals to sportsmen and to youth-a pretty scene around a lake, a baseball game being played, a pair of mallard ducks in the sights of a shotgun. It is all appealing to young people, and they read it; but so far as I am concerned, it is a bit of hypocrisy. If it is the law that liquor can be advertised, all right; I am not making any objection. Let them advertise liquor. On the other hand, if it is not legal to advertise liquor in this province then let them stick not only to the letter but to the spirit of such legislation. I do not know that that has any particular bearing on the matter of prices, but there it is, as having some relevancy to my previous argument
In conclusion, sir, if I may revert to the matter of price control and to the little nursery rhyme with which I opened my remarks last night, perhaps I might address these gentlemen in the guise of a consumer, and say to them:
What tho' X suffer countless ills?
What tho' I cannot pay my bills?
Never you mind, ball, roll on.
And so the government rolls on its course, in spite of the pleas of the people.
The Minister of Finance has announced that his government has no immediate plans for the control of prices. He has no intention to curb prices. In all conscience, to be fair, I cannot accuse the government of complete apathy, or indifference, or worse,

Cost of Living
but I can at least state my own opinion: I believe that in that decision the government is wrong, and that the history of this day will prove it. Micawber-like, the government looks to the future for the solution, in the hope that the grinding wheels of history may evolve some betterment, and apparently it is prepared to accept as inevitable the fact that many people will be pinched in the grinding process. I do not view inflation or high prices as things over which this government is unable to exert any control. I ask the government to take some action on the high cost of living, and to take it now.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, one of the cleverest moves of the session was the one by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to move such an amendment as this:	The house is of the
opinion that in view of the announcement made on Wednesday last of the greatest monthly increase in the Canadian cost of living during the month of February to the disastrously high level of 179-9 points, immediate consideration should be given to the adoption of appropriate measures to hold down the cost of living and halt inflation.
This was very clever and very smart, becajuse it was done just on the eve of the budget speech to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance and of the government to the high cost of living in Canada. The leader of the opposition must have real satisfaction in realizing that the minister took into consideration what he said in giving the final touch to his budget speech.
It is evident that the cost of living is high, and! that was evident even before the leader of the opposition made his speech and' other hon. members spoke in the house about the amendment. It was realized by all of us and by our families that the cost of living is pretty high. But may I be permitted, sir, to go back a few years to the time when international monetary and economic agreements were signed by many countries with a view to improving living conditions and decreasing the cost of living. What is the result? The result is that we have inflation, not only in Canada, but throughout the world. It is worse in the United States than it is in-Canada, as everybody knows. And what about England? Inflation is so high there that they cannot even give decent meat rations to the good people of the British isles. It is a general calamity.
While I will not discuss the budget speech, I will refer to it incidentally and say that the minister has taken into consideration the earning power of the individual, and the increase in taxation is graduated. Those who
r.Mr. Knight.]
have small incomes pay little, and those who have higher incomes pay more. The taxation will be in proportion to the income of the people, which is fair. But if we go back to the cause of taxation, what do we find? I repeat to my colleagues what I said to them about the gift loans made during the war. War expenditure is the cause of high taxation, which is admitted- by everybody. When I protested against the expedition to Korea I was alone in the house. Some hon. members looked at me over their shoulders, and they had a queer expression in their eyes. I was nearly alone. But the war expenditure is the cause of high taxation. Remove the cause and you remove the effect. It is a matter to be considered,
I am not blaming anyone for the views he has expressed or the vote he has given. We are in a free country, and I respect that freedom much more than some of the hon. gentlemen who speak so much about it. But now we have to face the condition which prevails here, and we have to take into consideration not only the effect but the cause. That being said, the government are doing the best they can to improve conditions.
In the debate that we have had for two days, with only the interlude of the budget speech, interesting speeches were made by every hon. member who addressed the Chair. Information was given about the cost of living in this country. I agree that the picture which has been painted of living conditions in Canada is accurate. I do not deny it. But what struck me during the debate was that all the hon. gentlemen who had spoken offered no constructive criticism whatever except the imposition of controls. Well, sir, I see some of my hon. friends opposite, some of whom I admire. I admire their genius, their gift of speech and all the qualities that a good parliamentarian should have. I wonder what constructive suggestions they have made, and what constructive suggestions they will make. They will say, "Let us have controls". Controls-when the prices are at the highest peak? It means that if prices are controlled when they are at their highest, the government will have to pay the difference and impose additional taxation to cover the amount of money that will have to be paid by the country to reduce prices artificially. That is my understanding of it. If the price of any commodity is 150 and someone suggests that it should be brought down to 100, who will bring it down, and who will pay for it? According to these people the government will bring it down to 100 and will pay the 50 from the pockets of the taxpayers.


An hon, Member:: And rations.



II, 1951

Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and rations. This means that the taxpayers will not be any the richer for it. They will have to open their purses and put their hands in their pockets to pay the additional taxation. That is what happens-and I leave it to any hon. member to suggest any other plan.
The plan offered for the setting up of controls is an absurd one. What is the government doing? It is trying to bring the attention of the people to the abnormal situation existing today. I hope that this year the people of Canada will be more reasonable in their purchases, that they will think of the future, and that they will not spend at once, as they do so often, all the money they earn, but rather that they will think of the future and will be more thrifty.
What I am about to say may be commonplace and may not add much to the debate, but there is an expression found in the bible which I suggest is appropriate. It has been true from the time it was written, and it is still true: desolatione desolata est omnis terra, quia nullus est qui recogitet corde. I am not speaking Armenian; I am speaking Latin which may be interpreted in this way: The land is desolate because there is no one who thinks from the bottom of his heart. I may not have recited accurately the text from the King James bible or the Catholic bible, but it is the idea conveyed by holy writ. It was true when it was written centuries ago, just as it is true today.
Each one of us, each taxpayer in Canada, knows that inflation exists, inflation that was fought for such a long time by so many artificial means. We know it exists in this country, just as it exists elsewhere throughout the world, except perhaps in the south sea islands where there is no established government. I deplore the fact that there are men in the bureau of statistics who are paid to make calculations about the high cost of living, and that they give that information to the radio stations to be broadcast throughout the country. If they gave us knowledge we did not already have, I would be all for it; but no one knows better than the Canadian taxpayer himself the cost of purchasing commodities. I do not see why so many men are employed, at good salaries and at the expense of the taxpayer, to repeat information we already know-that the cost of living is high in Canada, and that the index is at a certain level. It is an American invention with which I do not agree.
It is precisely because of these advertisements as to the cost of living index, advertisements appearing in the press and over the radio, that there has been so much difficulty 80709-122J
Cost of Living
among labour unions and with many individuals in Canada. They have been taking advantage of the figures given by the bureau of statistics with respect to the cost of living to ask for proportionate increases in wages and salaries; and there is no end to it.
I will not say that the figure 179-7 mentioned by the leader of the opposition is an accurate one. I know very well that for many commodities it is not accurate, because the cost of living is higher in respect of those commodities. But whatever the figure may be, no one in Canada can be better informed than the man who looks after his business or goes to the store to buy clothing or food, or makes any of the other normal living expenditures.
I am not preaching obscurantism; I want my fellow citizens to be as well informed as any member of the Social Credit group would want them to be. But I do not see the use of maintaining, at high cost, a group of men to prepare statistics on the cost of living Which, whether or not they are erroneous, create disturbance in the country, arouse the feelings of the people and cause them to worry about conditions in Canada. It does not do anything to help the Canadian people -and in due course I shall ask how many are working on this assignment, and how much they are paid. [DOT]
I shall not speak longer, because there is other legislation on the order paper, and we are about to have a budget debate, at which time all the questions that have been under discussion for two days as a result of the amendment of the leader of the opposition may be the subject of discourse or suggestion by any hon. member.
I will add just one further word. Under the previous regime we heard suggestions from the opposition as to new leadership. We hear no more about it now, because the country is satisfied with the leadership given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his colleagues; and that is why I shall not vote in favour of the amendment, which amounts to a motion of want of confidence. I am satisfied with the government. They are not perfect, but they do all they can, and they do as well as anyone else would in their stead. If there are hon. members of the opposition who are going to speak after me, they will be welcome, but I should like them to tell the house what they would do if they were in power now to control an inflation which is world-wide.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here through the debate waiting to hear the answer to the question that the Canadian people are asking: what is the government going to do about the high

Cost of Living
cost of living? What is going to be done about inflation? What measures are to be taken? For two days this discussion has proceeded, and as yet there is no suggestion that anything effective is to be done to meet a situation that affects every home in the country. No proof is needed that inflation today is terrible in its incidence and effect. No one expects the government to do everything, but at least the people as a whole have the right to expect that the government will do something at this time.
As I have listened to the debate I have wondered whether we in this house realize the situation in the country today. The people are asking us for leadership. They are asking us for hope. They are asking for suggestions as to what can be done. They need no proof that the dollar today has a purchasing value of only fifty-eight cents. Those who have saved money over the years, pensioners and those in the lower income groups, need no proof that prices have got out of bounds. All they ask is that the government in power, with the ability to act in this matter of prices, should do something effective, and do it now.
I remember the days of Mr. Bennett when he was blamed for everything in this country. He was blamed for conditions with respect to prices and unemployment. In those days my hon. friends opposite did not admit at any time that world conditions had anything to do with it, but today they blame world conditions. They are taking no action. They have made no serious retrenchment in controllable expenditures. It is true that they have removed a few mail carriers. These people move throughout the various communities in which they live, and will afford evidence that something is being done; but other than that, where is the retrenchment, where the indication on the part of the government that they are taking the lead in reducing expenditures?
Some say that price controls will not work; others say they will. Those who sold the concept of price control as an effective deterrent to high costs were members now sitting on the government side. For five, six, seven long years they sold the Canadian people on the concept that all you have to do is put a ceiling on prices and the consequence would be that the cost of living will be kept on an even keel. That was not our view; it was the view of the government. It was the view they expounded throughout the country over and over again in 1945, and in election advertising which is still available. Their campaign in 1945 was based on the idea that they had kept costs down. They said: We did it where no other country could do it; with our magnificent system we

gave a lead to every other country in the world; we led the United States; their prices went up; we established a control system that was effective. That was the story over and over again.
In the House of Commons as late as 1947 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was asked a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said:
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Is he in a position to confirm or comment on a report credited to a government financial expert that every dollar spent on price control has saved the consumer at least $55?
The Minister of Finance replied:
I do not know who the government financial expert is, and I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figure of $55, but I can say that I am sure the money spent on price control has saved the Canadian consumer very considerable sums.
And so it was with various other members of the cabinet. They held up their ideas and knowledge of economics as superior to that of any other government in the world. They said it could be done. They sold the idea. What a change! Were the promises of 1945 sincerely made? Was the statement correct that through the years over $2 billion had been saved as a result of price control, or were these statements merely windowdressing? Today they have an opportunity, but what do they say? They offer alibis, make excuses, refer to world conditions, and say that the farmer is getting a large portion of the price paid by the consumer. That has been said repeatedly of late; it was said the other night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). That statement is designed for one purpose-in order to induce farmers in the country to believe that anything that is done to meet inflation will hurt their earning power.
I think it should be realized that the price paid by consumers in Canada for farm products is not the price the farmer receives. The time has come to investigate the spread between the price the farmer receives and the price that is being paid by consumers. There is a tremendous spread, and I ask any farmer in the house if that is not so. The government say that we pay a high price for beef because of the United States market. Look at the spread between the price the farmer receives for beef and the price the Canadian consumer pays. What is being done by the government to investigate that situation? The Liberal party used to contend that the Conservative party was the ally of the big interests. The big interests in this

country have not been shown that the government is in any way inimicable to any injustices perpetrated. Why is there not an investigation? What does the farmer get of the consumer's dollar? Statistics show that the spread is very great between farmers' and consumer prices. Now instead of acting with resolution, instead of carrying out the promises of yesteryear, the ministers go across Canada and say in effect, "We can do nothing. We are helpless. We are hopeless."


Mr. Stick:: They do not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: They say the people should act for themselves and save themselves from inflation. During one of his recent junkets the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was in Saskatoon, where he delivered a speech which he said some might regard as the "unctuous counsel of perfection". That was his own label. In that speech he set out what could be done, and mentioned various things. No longer is price control the solution, he said. In fact price control did not keep down prices, according to the minister, who had this to say:
Controls never eradicate inflation. They merely postpone and conceal its effects.
What a change that is from a few years ago, when we were told of the hundreds of millions of dollars that had been saved as a result of price control. We were not of that view, but that was what the government contended. Today, faced with a situation which they realize is serious, they say price control is not effective and indeed never was effective. The Minister of Justice stated the businessmen of this country must accept responsibility regarding keeping down rising prices and the producers must produce more. In other words everyone else is to be responsible for the condition that exists, rather than the government of the day. The minister spoke of "psychological intangibles so important in this emergency period." He spoke of measures that will be taken; he mentioned the need5 of economy, and then he used these potent words, with which I agree: "This government will not shrink from the task of imposing taxes."
A psychological intangible? That is to be the final solution. We must rely on the courage of a government that will not shrink from something it certainly has not shrunk from doing in the last few years. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) wants to know what can be done, at a time when inflation is sapping the vitals of this country. I cannot refer to what is in the budget which was brought down last evening, but one of the ways that used to be put forward) by some hon. members to meet inflation and reduce the cost of living was to remove the sales tax
Cost of Living
on necessities required by people on low incomes. What a story the sales tax makes over the years. It was imposed in 1921, and was then 1 per cent. By 1935 it was 6 per cent. The Liberal party in the election of 1935, claimed the sales tax was wrong and unjust, that it should be removed on necessities. Then in May, 1936, after the election was won, it was raised to 8 per cent, where it has remained through the years. It is an attractive tax for the government purpose because it conceals from the people what they are paying. As I recall this government has not been above concealment as it did a flour milling report for quite a period. The sales tax is a cover up, and at a time when the people are asking for relief taxation is to be increased on such necessities as clothing, furniture and other things required in our homes. Is increasing the sales tax a way to meet inflation? Will it operate to deter the people from buying, when they do not know they are paying it? Surely the people of this country have a right to expect something more than a tax which Mr. Ilsley himself condemned in 1941, at page 2353 of Hansard. Referring to the sales tax he said:
This tax, while comparatively easy of administration and collection and extremely productive, has marked defects as a fiscal instrument. After extended consideration, we decided on balance against any increase. In coming to this decision, we were not forgetful of the problems of agriculture, which would have been intensified had the sales tax been raised.
Does anyone suggest that raising the sales tax and hiding it from the people is going to meet the problem of inflation and raise the standard of living in this country? The Minister of Justice was quite right when he said the government would not shrink from taxation. Not only that, but steps are now being considered with a view to bringing in an amendment to the constitution to provide for a turnover tax of 3 per cent by the provinces. While incomes shrink by inflation the government does not shrink from adding two per cent to the sales tax, and at the same time permitting the provinces to impose an indirect tax of 3 per cent. Surely the government is not so devoid of ideas that it can think of no other way to meet inflation but through the medium of additional taxation hidden from the people.
The turnover tax is one of the most dangerous things that could be brought into being in this country. It is a denial of the spirit of confederation which removed tariffs as between provinces. It is a denial of the concept upon which confederation was built. The ministers ask what can be done. Surely the government is not so bereft of capacity that it can think of nothing but to put the responsibility back upon the

Cost of Living
people as a whole. The ministers go around the country and admit inflation is bad, but if only the people will act for themselves things will get better. They say they cannot do anything, but that if only the people of Canada will exercise that fine fortitude and discrimination which the ministers ask them to exercise all will be well and inflation will be met. Why no positive action?
Why not remove the sales tax as far as necessities are concerned? Why not investigate the spread between what the farmer receives for the raw material and the price at which food is sold?
You know, Mr. Speaker, the safest offence a person can commit in Canada now is a breach of the combines act; that is one thing you can do with impunity. A few years ago parliament put teeth in the combines act. They have done mighty little biting since 1947. Under the combines act,
"Combine" means among other things a combination having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce, of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement, having or designed to have the effect of . . .
-enchancing the price, rental or cost of an article, storage or transportation; prevent or lessen competition. Is it not a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, that without agreement amongst the various manufacturers their prices go up at the same time? That is more than financial telepathy. It cannot be accounted for by coincidence alone. How many prosecutions have there been in the last year? How many investigations have taken place under the provisions of this act? How many have taken place during the last year? Mr. Speaker, the flour milling report was lost or covered up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was during the time of R. B. Bennett.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bennett was not in power in 1949 when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in co-operation with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), interfered with the law of this country and protected the wrongdoers. There have been no recent prosecutions except one, which is now before the courts.
I suggest that the combines act could be used, not for the purpose of interfering with lawful and legitimate business; not for the purpose of preventing fair and reasonable profits, but only in the cases where there is wrongdoing under the combines act or Criminal Code. You cannot tell me that prices are being increased from day to day by operation of the laws of supply and demand alone. You cannot tell me that day after day the same increase takes place by one company in the maritimes and by another

company in the prairies, and that in such cases there is no combine. The people of Canada are asking that action be taken where there is wrongdoing, or where as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said certain business interests were all set to take advantage of the people by the exaction of unjust monopoly prices. What the minister meant, I take it, is that there were manufacturers and industrialists who were raising their prices by agreement without regard to the costs of production but because they feared1 a ceiling would be placed on prices. If that was done, then offences against the combines act were committed-an offence against the people of Canada. The time has come to ask for the enforcement of the law. Legitimate business has nothing to fear under the law.
Sir, no one need fear the combines act who lives within the law. No one need fear prosecution unless an offence has been committed. Can good business practices justify some of the accelerated increases, in the last fifteen to eighteen months, in the prices of various commodities and manufactured goods. It is not a question of production, although the Minister of Trade and Commerce quite properly says that production might ultimately meet the situation. The Minister of Justice said in his speech to which I previously referred, that there "are too many dollars chasing too few goods." I say there are too many members of the cabinet, including the Minister of Justice, who are allowing wrongdoers, whose objective is too many profiteering dollars for themselves at the expense of too many consumers, to continue to raise prices unjustly and arbitrarily.
This is one of the most serious problems facing our country. Our defence depends on the dollar securing the largest possible return. Our people demand that, and our people have a right to expect that the government will not abdicate its responsibility to them. That is something it very seldom does, but in this case wherever ministers discuss the subject they blame an alleged world-wide situation, and that the people can remedy inflation if they will only act in concert. There is no doubt that production would help. There is no doubt that there are far too many dollars in circulation, having regard to the needs and exigencies of finance. There is no doubt that a greater help would be if the government would say to those who are taking advantage, "The time has come for you to realize that injustice, exploitation and profiteering will not be condoned but will be punished by us." Such a stand would start a recession in price levels in this country, without any detriment to the producer but with benefit to the consumer. What have those who want to benefit themselves through exploitation of the people

to worry about under the law as now enforced? According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce some business interests were set to take advantage several months ago. They have not been set since, some have actually been in full operation.
If the government wanted to act, it could do so by serving stern notice that price spreads are going to be investigated unless there is a lessening of this accelerated increase in prices; and that where there are obvious unlawful and arbitrary increases in prices, the combines act will be used. So far *as the consumer in Canada today is concerned, it is open season. We have the laws and they could be enforced. In my opinion the lack of enforcement of the law is an inducement and encouragement to wrongdoers who wish to exploit the people of our country.


John James Smith: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what has been said by nearly everyone who has taken part in this debate, that I am going to be brief. There are a few things I believe I should say. It makes it a little difficult for me to follow such an eloquent speaker as the one who has just preceded me. However, I am going to endeavour to say a few things about controls.
I believe we all realize what inflation is, and the high cost of commodities in our country. It is essential that we realize the cause if we are going to discuss the subject. To me inflation, is the opposite of deflation and low prices. I believe the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) would agree with me when I say that we in the province of Saskatchewan are better off with inflation and high prices than low prices and deflation. Once before in this house I made the statement that it did not matter too much to the ordinary Joe whether or not the dollar was worth only fifty cents, provided he had two or three of them.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) went back to days gone by. I would ask him and his colleagues to go back with me and the people of Canada just three hundred and sixty-five days, when we are talking about inflation and the high cost of living and possibly are ready to blame the government for that. Three hundred and sixty-five days ago, as I think the records will show, the debate in this house was not with regard to the high cost of living or at least with regard to inflation but rather we were discussing the possibility of lower prices and deflation.
The government believe that they can do something about this matter. Some hon. members say they are doing nothing. Being a
Cost of Living
supporter of the government it will be interesting and encouraging for me-and I think it should be encouraging for most Canadians- if they succeed in taking care of the inflation we have today through various financial measures. I believe they will succeed to some extent. The interesting part is that if you can do it on that side, you can also do it when we have deflation.
I am not going to dwell long on this matter. The budget debate will be coming on. But I thought it did not make any difference whether I spoke now or on the budget. Those of us that blow off steam now will have less to blow off on the budget.
As to this inflation we have, many people are disappointed and they are at a disadvantage with it. There are, however, some people who have had advantages from this inflation. I hear some groans, but I will point out to those from whom they emanate that in Canada today we have many people who, because of inflation, have been able to pay their debts much more easily than if we had not had it. Those hon. members to whom I referred may groan on that for a while.
We hear talk about buying, and I am speaking now of high costs and inflation. Before I came to Ottawa for the special session last summer I had to build a house in the little town in which I live, close to my farm, because I had a man on the farm; and I had to buy almost everything-fixtures and furniture, including a refrigerator and a stove. When I came through Winnipeg for the special session, I was supposed to have bought the last refrigerator in Winnipeg. I suggested to various stores I went into that I would get it on my way back. They said, "Oh no, you cannot do that. There will not be any." It was the same picture as to electric stoves. Since then I have been in Winnipeg a few times, including the time when I came back after Easter, and I found far more stoves and refrigerators than there were at that time. The cry went out across Canada: "Buy now or you will not get it." I think most people bought for the reason that they felt they might not be able to get things later. After the Korean war started, there was supposed to be a shortage. I do not know of a shortage of anything in this country other than of heavy machinery and things of that kind which are made of steel. I think possibly we are at the peak with regard to those hoarders, if I may use that word, who have been hoarding things; for the reason that when they find that there are no shortages, and that there are not apt to be any in the immediate future, they are going to have to take from their basements and put on display those things to be sold.

Cost of Living
It I may, 1 should now like to refer to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). He said yesterday that the government had lost contact with the common people. That statement I cannot accept. I happen to be a supporter of the government, and I am in contact with the people. He may be able to sell that one to the people in his constituency, but I am going to assure him and all other hon. members of the House of Commons that he would have a hard time selling that argument to the people of Moose Mountain.
What I really wanted to say was this as to controls. I stated that I was hopeful that this inflation would be dealt with. But who is getting hurt today by this inflation? It is the people on fixed incomes. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) the other evening read various letters she had received with regard to the old people, and stating their plight under this inflation. I do not think there is any member in the House of Commons, sitting on either side, who would deny the fact that many of our pensioners, and more particularly the old age pensioners, are in difficulty because of the high cost of living. What shall we do for them? Shall we just bang on immediate controls, as the amendment suggests? I can see no way in which that would help these old folks. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said that most members who spoke offered no solution. I am going to offer one for those people. I do not know how it could be carried out. Possibly the British North America Act will not allow it to be done. However, in my opinion, if it would not, then the British North America Act is as out of date as the Roman empire.
What shall we do? Let us get down to the bottom and do something for the class of people that is most severely hurt. Speaking of the budget, I think it was not too tough. If by necessity-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member may not refer to the budget.


John James Smith: Very well,
Mr. Speaker. But having regard to what I wanted to say, my suggestion will call for a little money. However, we shall get along without referring to the budget. It would not take a great deal of money, in my opinion, to look after these aged people and really do something for the people who are getting hurt most. What would I suggest? I would suggest doing it this way. First of all, I would make it the responsibility of municipal governments to say who should have a further cost of living bonus, let us call it. You may move it up and down with

this cost of living index-I do not follow it much-which the hon. member for Temis-couata has not much use for. But anyway, we could use that. I think the provincial governments should be partly responsible for this cost of living bonus and also the federal government. What amount? I would not suggest the details other than to say possibly 25 per cent by the municipal governments-


An hon. Member:: Oh.


John James Smith: Here is that "oh" again. Just a minute until I get through. I said I was not working out the details. I leave it to my hon. friend who utters the "oh". Twenty-five per cent by the provincial governments, and 50 per cent by the federal government; if that is too much, let us get it down to 12J per cent by the municipal governments, 12J per cent by the provincial governments and 75 per cent by the federal government.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Why the municipal governments?


John James Smith: My hon. friend asks, Why the municipal governments? I am a little surprised that a man who has been in the municipal set-up for as long as he has been asks me that question.


James Arthur Ross: That is why I want to know.


John James Smith: Because I think they are the ones who should have some responsibility. I think that is the way in which it should be worked, unless we are just talking for the sake of hearing ourselves talk. I am suggesting that we do something for these aged people.
I was a reeve of a municipality before coming here. A municipal council is much the same as this house, with the exception of the reeve. I can picture no other group, if we are going to do a job for these aged people, who can do it better than the municipalities and the municipal councils, with the reeve sitting down with them. I can just picture them now doing a splendid job in suggesting who needs help in the municipalities. They could even take in those people who are too humble to come forward and ask for further assistance. I think the hon. member for Souris will agree with me there.


James Arthur Ross: I will not agree that they should do it.


John James Smith: We have all been through that mill. Because of the seat in which the hon. member for Souris sits possibly that is the reason why he suggests that the federal government should do it all under such a scheme. If I were the reeve, or on that council and that were the case,

I think I might suggest that all pensioners in my municipality should have this federal dole. However, I think it might be abused, and that is why I think it should be in part a municipal responsibility.
I have nothing more to say other than 1 wish to put that thought before the house.
I call upon hon. members on all sides of the house, if they are sincere, and I think they are, about doing something, for the needy when this amendment now before the house is defeated, and I think it will be; I certainly intend to help defeat it. When the budget debate comes up we will hear about those who are getting hurt by inflation and the high cost of living. I think the old and the aged are the ones who are hurt the most. I do not think we shall have very much trouble selling this to the government. I have not spoken to any members of the government, but I do not think we shall have too much trouble selling it, providing that we all get out and try to sell this plan or something else. Perhaps I can go along with those who think they have something better to suggest. I now invite members of the opposition and my colleagues to let us try to sell this idea to the government. If we try to sell it to the provincial governments and the municipal governments I do not think we shall have any difficulty, and at least we shall be starting to do a job that should be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the
amendment which is now before the house, Which asks for appropriate measures to combat the rising cost of living. There is no doubt in my mind that the meaning of the amendment is clear. It calls for the reimposition of price controls and the payment of subsidies where necessary.
I am satisfied from the speech that was made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), when he introduced the amendment, that if it had not been for the fact that earlier in this session there was another amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), which called specifically for price controls and subsidies, the leader of the opposition would have used those words in his amendment. I have no doubt that he was afraid to use those words again, lest such an amendment be out of order. He felt that it was better to draft the kind of amendment which would be in order in this house. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support the amendment on the understanding that it does call for the reimposition of price controls and the payment of necessary subsidies to protect the health and living standards of the Canadian people.
Cost of Living
I was interested in the remarks that have just been made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). I was glad to note the question that he asked on the orders of the day at three o'clock today. He noted that certain candy manufacturers had indicated that, despite the decrease in taxation which they are to enjoy, it was not their intention to reduce the price of candy bars.
I hope that the hon. member for Moose Mountain will pursue that matter, for it does seem to me that it is certainly out of keeping with the will of the government and of parliament.
I noticed just now, however, what the hon. member for Moose Mountain had to say about old age pensioners. I share to the full his feeling that the old age pensioners are a group of people who are hit particularly hard by inflation; and I think he is to be complimented on the sentiments he has, which have led him to feel that if his government will not do something about the over-all problem of inflation, at least something should be done for this particular group of people. I want to say to him that that really is not the way to deal with the kind of government that we have at the present time, to give them an out so far as the major problem is concerned. If you want to get even a little improvement you have to hit hard for what is really needed in the country at the present time. But I would point out to him two things: first, that serious as is the plight of old age pensioners, with the value of the $40 shrunk in terms of 1935-39 dollars values to $22.25, serious as is their plight, many other groups in the community are likewise suffering because of the high cost of living which now obtains. I am satisfied that while we must have-and I am in there fighting for it- improvements so far as old age pensions are concerned, and I hope we will get some improvements at this session, yet in addition to that we need an over-all attack on this problem of inflation, the perils of which might well be ruinous to the people of this country.
As for the specific suggestion made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain-and this is the other thing I wanted to say to him- I do think he should consider it more carefully before he puts it forth on the floor of the House of Commons. In essence what he proposes is a supplement to the old age pension on another means test basis. The hon. member is going in reverse. It has taken a long while to get across the idea that the means test should be abolished altogether. But at least we have before parliament now recommendations made by a special committee last June to the effect that the means test should be abolished for those seventy

Cost of Living
and over. I regret very much that the suggestion has been made in the house this afternoon that the government should travel in the other direction and should consider a supplement based on a second means test.
It was quite clear in the hon. member's remarks that a means test would be involved in his suggestion because he wanted the municipal council to determine who needed this supplement, regardless of the basis upon which the amount of that supplement might be worked out. As I say, I am all with the hon. member for Moose Mountain in pressing the plight of the old age pensioners, and I shall continue to do so myself, but I suggest to him that that is not the way to meet their problems. An old age pension should be a pension as a matter of right. I suggest to him further that there is an over-all problem here with which we must deal, namely the effect on all the people of Canada of the inflation we now have, the effect of the new high cost of living index, which stands at 179-7.
I have no doubt some members of the government may wonder at our persistence in this matter; they may wonder why we continue to argue about it and call for action, despite repeated refusals by the government to meet our requests. I think perhaps I might be pardoned for pointing out that sometimes persistence pays off in the House of Commons. I have been here for nine years, twelve sessions; and if I wanted to take the time I could give the house a fair list of issues concerning which I, myself, have fought, issues which in the first instance were rejected by the government but which, in due course, were granted.
The latest of these victories was won last night. It is less than two months since I last raised in the house the question of making trade union dues deductible for income tax purposes. It is a matter I have raised for five or six sessions. Persistence has been my motto, and last night persistence paid off. The government has accepted that proposal, and I welcome it most heartily.


Mr. McCann:: You do not take full credit, do you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall leave that to the public. The point I make is that persistence pays off. The Minister of National Revenue has put in his usual kind of interjection at this point. The fact of the matter is that his department denied to trade unionists the right to deduct their trade union dues for income tax purposes during the years when the law gave them that permission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should not refer to the budget debate.
[Mr. Knowles.1


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not referring to the budget debate; I was referring to what was done in 1945, 1946 and 1947 by the Department of National Revenue. But, even so, I shall let the matter drop.
My only point in referring to last night's announcement was to point out that there are frequent examples of the maxim that persistence pays; and it is on that basis, feeling that the issue of the high cost of living is so pressing, that we persist in making our case clear to the government, in the hope that even yet we will get the action needed. The action needed is a program of price controls and subsidies.
The people of Canada are still being left in a very uncertain state so far as this question is concerned. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) took part in this debate he indicated that at least at the present time there was no intention of going into an over-all program of price controls. Press reports on his speech were even stronger; they indicated that on behalf of the government he had rejected the demand for price controls which had been presented to the government by the entire opposition in this house. That was the night before last.
Yesterday the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada appeared before the government with its annual brief on matters of concern to the workers of this country. One of their requests was for a program of price controls and necessary subsidies. According to press reports the Prime Minister's answer to the delegation representing the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada was to the effect that the government was not prepared to bring in any price controls until such time as it was convinced that such a program would work. In other words a few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to close the door finally; yesterday at noon the Prime Minister indicated that, while the crack in the doorway is very narrow, the door itself is not closed.
This means that the people of Canada are left in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not we are going to get action on this important matter. We feel that that uncertainty should be resolved, but we feel very strongly that it should be resolved in the right manner.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke the other night he used as an argument against a program of price controls and subsidies the contention that he did not know of any administrative people who would care to take on a program of price control. He said that those who had had anything to do with price controls during the last war were

now of the opinion that such a program would not work at this time.
I have not been present at any discussion the minister may have had with any of those administrative people, any economists who might take on such a program, but I do know he is a man of considerable power and influence in this country, and that he very often gets his way. I can quite imagine that if he said to some of the administrative officers who had to do with price controls in the past something like this: a program of price controls would not work now, would it?-they would agree with him that it wouldn't. But I am equally satisfied that if the government were to change its mind and the Minister of Trade and Commerce were to go to those same people, those who worked on controls during the last war, and say to them: say, you fellows could do a job on price controls, could you not?-they would say yes. That is the power the Minister of Trade and Commence has; and I hope we can persuade the government to change its attitude and to haul in the people who have had experience in the matter and give them the job, in the name of the people of Canada, of saving the economy of the country from running completely wild.
Although I have said it before, because it is my motto that persistence pays, I think a few words should be said now about the effect of the new cost of living index on various groups of people. I pointed out before, but I shall repeat that during the years of the war, from 1941 to 1945, the years when price controls were completely in effect, the total increase in the cost of living index was only eight points-eight points in four years. During the last twelve months we have had an increase of over sixteen points. From 1945 to the latest figure the increase in the general cost of living index has been over sixty points.
I would point out further-and I shall refer to it in another connection in a few moments -that the food index stood at 133 at the end of the war, and that it is now 233-9. That is an increase since 1945 of more than 100 points.
As I have already said, the result of the index reaching 179-7 is that the $40 being paid to old age pensioners is only $22.25 in terms of 1935-39 dollar value. That means that all the fighting we have done to get a better deal for the old age pensioner in terms of the amount of the pension has been wiped out by -the inflation that has been permitted to take place. It seems to me the government should be deeply concerned, about what inflation has done to the legislation of which it boasts, and that it should take 80709-1231
Cost of Living
steps to protect the old age pensioners against this denial to them of the supposedly increased- value of their old age pensions.
Let me say a word about another piece of legislation the government introduced and which, incidentally, had the unanimous support of the house-andi by "unanimous" I mean a recorded vote. I am referring to family allowances. Family allowances were made law in 1944 and became effective in 1945. As I said] a moment ago, in 1945 the food index stood at 133-0. The food index as at March 1, 1951, the latest figure we have, stands at 233-9. Most of us know that the major use of family allowances, when they first became effective, was for the purchase of additional food. As we have pointed out in previous debates, the increased purchase of milk in the cities of this country was directly proportionate to the extra money that parents had to provide for a slightly better life for their children. Therefore I think it is fair to say that a good deal of the money that was provided by way of family allowance benefits went into food at the start. Some of it also may have gone into clothing for children. In some cases people have been able to put it by and save it for their children's education, but in the main I submit it went for food.
What has happened to the cost of food since family allowances came into effect? The cost, of living index is based on an expenditure of $1,453 in a year by a so-called average family in the period 1935-39. It is based on the basket of goods and services that the average family was able to buy in the base years for the sum of $1,453. That original basket of goods and services was 31 per cent food. In other words, in that figure of $1,453, $450 of it per year was spent on food. That was the amount in the base period 1935-39. If one does a little simple arithmetic he finds that in 1945, the year family allowances became effective, that basket of food had increased in cost from $450 to $598. I am taking these amounts in even dollars and leaving out the cents. That figure is based on a food index at that stage of 133-0.
All right, let us start from there. In 1945, when family allowances first became effective, the cost of food to the average family portrayed in the cost of living index was $598, but the food index has gone up to 233-9, and the food that cost $598 in 1945 now costs $1,048, an increase of $450. It is dangerous to talk about the average family because they have a decimal figure so far as the number of children is concerned, but it runs around two or three. Therefore the average family receives a family allowance of $144 a year

Cost of Living
if they have two children each in the $6 per month bracket. They get $216 a year if they have one child in the $7 bracket, one in the $6 bracket and one in the $5 bracket. I will take the second figure, which I think is being unnecessarily fair for the purpose of the point I am making. In other words, that average family gets, because of family allowances, $216 a year more than it was getting in 1945 but it has to pay for food alone $450 more than it paid in 1945.
In other words, the advantage of the family allowance, in better nutrition and better food for the children of the country, has been wiped out at least twice by the inflation that has taken place since the Family Allowances Act came into effect. One might go on with all the other groups in the community on fixed incomes. It applies likewise to those who are on wages because, as we have pointed out so often, while wages have risen through the years they have continually lagged behind the rise in the cost of living. In reply to that some hon. members point at times to the argument that the cost of living index figure does not seem to have risen as high as the wage index figure issued by the Department of Labour, and which can be found in the occasional publication of the Labour Gazette. The point that hon. members have to bear in mind is that the wage index is based on a different base year. In addition, it is based on the actual absolute number of dollars and cents received by the workers.
So far as the cost of living index is concerned, it is based on a basket of goods and services that a so-called average family could buy for $1,453 in the years 1935 to 1939, and there has been no adjustment in that basket of goods and services for rising standards of living which surely have taken place in this country in the last twelve or fifteen years. Incidentally, I had a question on the order paper earlier in this session as to whether any consideration had been given to adjusting the cost of living index to take into account protective foods now regarded as essential by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The answer was that no such consideration had been given, that there had not been any change in the way in which the cost of living index is worked out to take any account of these changes in our patterns or standards of living.
Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the two indexes, one put out by the dominion bureau of statistics on the cost of living, and one put out by the Department of Labour on wages, are not comparable, and that the proof of that is well known to any worker, and to any worker's wife, trying desperately to make both ends meet. I have said it

before, and I am saying it again today, that no less a person than Mr. Justice Kellock of the Supreme Court of Canada, when he made his award to the railway workers who were involved in the dispute of last fall, said that in order for those railway workers to have as at September 1, 1950, the same relationship between their wages and the cost of living that obtained in June, 1948, they should have had an increase in their wages of 10-2 cents an hour. He made it clear that the reason he gave them only 7 cents an hour was that this parliament, on the basis of the bill introduced by the government, had frozen the increase at the ceiling of 7 cents an hour.
Let me make it clear that this is not a so-called street corner labour agitator. This is Mr. Justice Kellock of the Supreme Court of Canada saying that, when he gave the railway workers 7 cents an hour effective September 1, 1950, he was giving them an increase that was already 3-2 cents an hour short of what they should have had to maintain the relationship between their wages and the cost of living that obtained in June, 1948. That is what Mr. Justice Kellock says about the award given to the railway workers and effective September 1, 1950. But at that date the cost of living index stood at 169-8, and it has now risen to 179-7, or practically ten full points. In other words, so far as the railway workers are concerned, the wage increase they got last fall, was- because of the ceiling effected by an act of this parliament-already wiped out when they got it, and it has been wiped out again by the increase in the cost of living index that has taken place since the award was made. What holds for railway workers holds for wage earners right across the board. They know it and their wives know it, as they try to make both ends meet at today's prices on the incomes they are getting.
In this connection there is something I would like to say. In the remarks that were made last night I noted that one of the virtues of this country is that we have a minimum amount of division, that we are a united people as far as our aims in general are concerned. I think those sentiments were well put by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). So it is that I deplore the fact that at times people get up in this house and try to divide city workers from farm workers when it comes to the plight they are both in. I think of some speeches that have been made by hon. members on the other side of the house, one of whom I am looking at now, who seem to think that in order to present the case of the farmers they have to run down the city workers. Nothing could do a greater disservice to the well-being of the people of this country. It is perfectly true that



[Stage Direction]
every time it is necessary to plead the cause of the workers of the constituency I represent, or the workers of Canada, I am Johnny on the spot, and I hope I may continue to be; but I have never pleaded, and will never, as long as I am here, plead the case of city workers against the plight in which workers in the country, the farmers of Canada, also find themselves.
Mr. Sinnoil:: I rise on a question of
privilege. I want to inform the hon. member that I never ran down any city workers. I stated what wages were in 1944 and 1950, and that was all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not mention the hon. member; he must have a guilty conscience. I have listened with interest and enthusiastic support to speeches by my deskmate the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), and others of this group pleading the case of the farmers of this country, and I have never heard them suggest that in order to improve the position of the farmers somehow or other the workers in the cities had to learn what hard work was out on the farms. That does not apply only to this group. I am looking at the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) who is a hard fighter for a better deal for the farmers of Canada. He speaks time and again in this connection, as did the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) today. I cannot remember hearing either of those hon. members put the position of the farmers against that of the workers. I submit we must get away from this suggestion, even by innuendo or inference-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a question of privilege, I want the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to retract the statement that I ran down the city people.


An hon. Member:: He did not make it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Yes, he did, and Hansard will prove it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the hon.
member has no point of privilege, since I have not named him at all. If his conscience hurts him when I speak of people who by innuendo seek to stir up division between workers and farmers, he will have to deal with his own conscience.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Whom were you looking at?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am addressing my remarks to Mr. Speaker. But if the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) wants me to quote statements from Hansard in which by inference he has said that the trouble with city
Cost of Living
people is that they do not know what hard work is out on the farm, I can produce them.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: And I will repeat them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the hon. member's privilege; but do not get up on a point of privilege and claim you did not make the statement when you are ready now to repeat it. The fact of the matter is that what is needed in this country is a realization of the fact that workers in city and country alike are in the same plight. When I plead for price controls and subsidies, when I plead! for steps to be taken to bring down the cost of living and give the people of this country a better break, 1 am asking for that better break for people in city and country.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In addition to pleading the cause of the railway workers and others in the cities of this country, when there was a motion before the house for a better break for the wheat farmers of Canada I was in my place and voted for it. I suggest that the hon. member for Springfield answer that one.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Don't try to camouflage the issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member knows that when there was a vote in this house on a better price for the wheat farmers of western Canada, he was in the building but not in his place to cast his vote. Later on when there was a vote on another amendment which had the same effect but did not name an amount, he was here but voted against it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have never been led around by the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the hon. member talks one way and votes another, as so often happens in this house.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Just a bunch of nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to make it perfectly clear, having in mind some of the things the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said the other evening, that when we ask for price controls we are not asking for price freezing. We are asking for a proper relationship between the wages city workers receive and their cost of living, and likewise a proper relationship between the prices farmers receive for their products and the cost of the things which they have to buy. What is that? It is just plain law and order. The trouble with this country today is that we have economic anarchy. We have a government which, as the hon. member for Lake Centre says, will not shrink from imposing taxes but shrinks from trying to sort these things out and bring in the rule of law with respect to

Cost of Living
economic forces. Indeed, that is the whole position of the socialist movement to which I belong, that democracy means control by the people of the things that affect the lives of the people. It is not enough to have that control exercised by legislative bodies with respect to a few academic matters, for the thing that affects the lives of the people most of all is what they get for the work they do, whether in the city or in the country, and the amount they have to pay in order to enjoy the standard of living that is their right because of the work that they do.
So I plead for an end to this suggestion that we want no changes at all in prices or wages. We want control, and that means regulation; it means adjustments upward in some cases and downward in others, so there will be a proper relationship between what people get for their work, whether on the farm or in the city, and what they have to pay for the things necessary to a decent standard of life. In other words it is the phrase "parity prices" that the farmers use. We want the same thing for the city people. We want some reasonable parity between what they receive for their work and what it costs them to live decently.
Incidentally, that decent standard of living should not be the standard suggested by the 1935-39 cost of living index. That is the reason that figure of 179-7 is away out. It is based upon a basket of goods and services which was acceptable in 1935-39, but no such basket of goods and services is acceptable today. Today's real cost of living is actually much higher. Someone may ask where the difference is to come from. I suggest that there have been tremendous increases in corporation profits in the last few years. Figures that were furnished us last night show that whereas in 1939 corporation profits before taxes were $618 million, in 1950 they were $2,270 million. Even after taxes they were $406 million in 1939 and $1,402 million in 1950.
So, Mr. Speaker, the room is there to make an adjustment so that there will be a proper relationship between the amount that people receive for their work and what it costs for a proper standard of living in 1951. I urge that there be no more of this talk to the effect that the government should not interfere, and that the government should leave the people with all those "psychological intangibles" to somehow buy less and produce more to put an end to the inflation. It is the job of the government to represent the people, and to do in the name of the people the things that the people require to be done; the things that will make sure

there is the rule of law with respect to matters that affect the well-being of all our people. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that my time may be running out. I had planned-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members need not say "Hear, hear", because if my time runs out on this occasion there will be other occasions. It is not unknown for me to take advantage of the opportunities that are afforded in this place to speak in the name of the people I represent.
I want to suggest to hon. members that this notion that is so often thrown out that high wages are the cause of high prices is dealt with effectively in a rather long and academic but well documented article which appears in the January, 1948, issue of the Typographical Journal, the official organ of the International Typographical Union. It is an article entitled "High Wages do not Cause High Prices", by Clark B. Hicks. In the main it is based on studies that had been carried out in the United States by a division of the department of commerce at Washington, the results of which were put forth in a report entitled "Productivity and Unit Labour Costs in Selected Manufacturing Industries, 1919-1940." The results of this survey show that, despite increases in the rates of wages, not just from one year to the next but across the years, the actual unit cost of production in terms of wages goes down.
Upon examining the data in detail, it will be found that the hourly earnings rose 33-1 per cent in the twenty-one year period which was reviewed. Instead of causing a like increase in wage costs a great reduction in unit labour costs took place. The index of unit labour cost fell from 145-4 in 1919 to 81-2 in 1940, a drop of 44-2 per cent. The point is that wage rates went up over the twenty-one year period by 33-1 per cent, but the unit cost of production went down 44-2 per cent, due largely to technological improvements and the increased productivity of labour.
Mr. Hicks in this article gives several examples. I shall not take the time to read them in full, but I should like to indicate two of them which set out the point very well. He points out that President Hoffman of the Studebaker Corporation has indicated that back in 1870 wages in the Studebaker plant were $9.60 per week for a week of sixty hours. In 1947 the wages had increased to $60 for a week of forty hours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hon.
member has now exhausted his time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just finish this one example? In other words, there has been

this tremendous increase in wage rates, but President Hoffman of the Studebaker organization said that if they had to produce modern Studebaker cars at the wage rate of 1870, and with other conditions obtaining at that time, it would cost $50,000 to produce one car. That makes clear the point that an increase in wages actually results across the years in a lower per unit cost. I submit that that applies to both city workers and farm workers, and that wages are not the cause of inflation. These huge corporation profits are the cause, and it is time for the rule of law. It is time for price controls.


James Arthur Ross: I had not planned to speak in this debate-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: With the permission of the member for Souris (Mr. Ross), I should like to ask the member for Winnipeg North Centre a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the member for Quebec-Montmorency.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Did I understand the hon. member to say he was in favour of over-all price controls, including wage controls?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with that so often-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Just give me a direct answer, yes or no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have asked for the rule of law in connection with these matters, for a proper relationship between prices and wages. Hon. members know that I have dealt with that very fully, and on other occasions I have read extracts from representations by the four major labour groups of this country. Their position and mine is very clear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I should like to read to the house a telegram-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the member for Quebec-Montmorency.
(Translation):


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting that in such an important debate someone should speak in French.
Since I have recently stated my position on the matter under discussion and since I have pointed out my attitude in this respect I will be brief.
I am convinced that steps must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity to stabilize the cost of living and to stem inflation. As a matter of fact, I am afraid it is already too late.
The purchasing power of our dollar has dropped to about 56 cents, and I am convinced
Cost of Living
that this follows the exorbitant profits taken by middlemen, who operate between the producer and the consumer.
Today, more than ever before in the history of our country, big monopolies control, to a large extent, the purchasing power and the distribution of essential goods. Because of their purchasing power, they are in a position to accumulate enormous stocks and control distribution at such times as they feel it will bring them larger profits. Our legislation has enabled those trusts to come into being.
Anyone who takes the trouble to compare the spread between prices paid to producers and those paid by consumers is amazed at the enormous profits made by middlemen.
How can we expect lower costs of production, in poultry farming for instance, when farmers have to pay excessive prices for feed as a result of the operations of the milling trust, exposed in the McGregor report?
During the last war, the government put an embargo on cattle exports to the United States in order to help the British people feed themselves at a reasonable price. To my knowledge, no one objected at the time or claimed that the step might hamper our trade relations with the United States. As controls were also in effect, our people were then able to buy steak, for instance, at a reasonable price.
It is admitted that the higher salaries paid in the United States enable Americans to carry off from our market a large share of the cattle that would normally be sold to Canadian consumers.
During the last war and even afterwards, the government did not hesitate to place an embargo on cattle exports to the United States in order to help feed the British. May I now, sir, request the government to reestablish this embargo or at least to authorize the export of only part of our Canadian cattle. Thus the government would show the Canadian consumers the same consideration it has shown to the British before the embargo was removed and would allow our citizens to make both ends meet.
I realize that this will not please the trusts who, in Canada, control the buying and distributing in this field, but it will surely tend to prevent soulless capitalists from taking advantage of our people.

Cost of Living
I realize that the capitalists who control warehousing in Canada are interested in sustaining the gigantic struggle they are now waging in order to delay as much as possible the setting up of controls, because in the meantime they will be able to store a larger quantity of goods which they will sell at astronomical prices without any danger, since, when the last budget was drafted, it was not deemed advisable to reimpose taxation on surplus profits. Should we always bow to the edicts of higher finance?
For the reasons I have just given and having carefully gone over the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), which reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion that in view of the announcement made on Wednesday last of the greatest monthly increase in Canadian cost of living during the month of February to the disastrously high level of 179-7 points, immediate consideration should be given to the adoption of appropriate measures to hold down the cost of living and halt inflation.
-I have come to the conclusion that I am duty-bound to vote in favour of it, not because I am convinced of the sincerity of the Progressive Conservative party, which has often given proof to this house that it went hand in glove with cartels, but because the amendment, such as it stands, is a true reflection of my opinion and also because I know that the Liberal party respects the opinion of its followers, even though they might occasionally not share the government's own views.
(Text):


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the debate until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) interjected some remarks about the high cost of food. The basis of my remarks is taken from yesterday's London Free Press. This quotation that I am going to give you is to point out what a good many people in the country do not realize is going on. Just to be brief, I might say that these figures are taken from the United States department of agriculture's bureau of agricultural economics. The quotation reads as follows:
Like this for example . . . Using last December's prices ... If the farmer gave away the wool in a $50 suit of men's clothing, the suit would still sell for $40.50 ... If he'd give away the wheat in a 16-cent loaf of bread, the loaf would still cost the consumer 13-4 cents ... If the farmer gave away the beans in a 16-cent can of pork and beans, the can would still cost you 14 cents at the grocery store . . . For cigarette smokers . . .
[Mr. LaCroix.l
These are American prices.
... If the tobacco grower gave away the tobacco in a 20-cent pack of cigarettes, the girl behind the counter would still ask you for 17 cents to pay for that purchase.
The impression was left that food prices were too high. That seems to be where everybody wants to bear down with regard to this high cost of living. It is the food prices that they complain about. As I said once before in this house this session, if the people want to eat, they want to be careful what they do when they go to control the prices of various products. The impression has gone abroad that if any controls are put on, the farmer will be the first one to suffer. I think we shall have to decide whether we want to eat anything else besides wheat. We have an abundance of that. But apparently many of the other food products are not going to be in too abundant supply.
I just rose to impress on the house the realization that this forever bearing down on the price of foods and up on other things- and advocating shorter hours-is going to have a final result that we are going to be short of food.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this amendment until I listened to some of the discussion this afternoon. Needless to say, I am going to support this amendment. My chief difficulty, on behalf of many people in this country, is a lack of a parity basis. Certainly we have a runaway inflation to contend with right now. Despite that fact we have some system of controls in this country yet. We have one class of people who have been controlled for some years. We have today a government contract which controls as yet the wheat farmers of this country.
I am not taking any issue with my colleague who has just taken his seat. I agree with everything he has said. I am in hearty agreement with the statement that if we are not careful about this matter there will be a shortage of necessary foodstuffs in this country. I quite agree with all that the hon. member has said. But, Mr. Speaker, under the international wheat agreement we have an extremely unfair set-up. When that agreement was entered into some time ago, it looked as though there might be decreasing wheat values throughout the world as well as in this country. Nobody could foresee the future. The wheat farmers of this country are definitely controlled. They have not any option as to where they may sell their products. The price is set there. Right today the wheat farmer of the prairie provinces is subsidizing the consumers of Canada to the extent of 35 cents a bushel on every

bushel of wheat he delivers and sells. There is there a form of control that the wheat farmer cannot get out from under.
Under this compulsory legislation he is forced to sell his wheat through this government monopoly or set-up we have, and it is not sold on the same basis as it is sold by thfe Americans to the south. Our American neighbour just across the border gets the full value for his wheat. It is true enough-and 1 want to be fair-that they, by virtue of their great population, can handle their wheat situation much more easily than we can handle our great surplus in this country. But over there, while their quota is delivered under the international agreement, the farmer selling the wheat receives the full value for it, the difference between the prevailing value and the price set under the international agreement. The point I want to make is that there was lack of foresight in drawing up that international wheat agreement. There should have been an escalator clause in there whereby-


Mr. Sluder:: Why did you not have it put in?


James Arthur Ross: I am not a member of the government.


Irvin William Studer: You were here and did not advocate it at the time.


James Arthur Ross: On another occasion I shall be glad to hear from my hon. friend. I have said that I should like to hear my good friend the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) with regard to this matter. He is one of the best speakers in this House of Commons. I would gladly sit and listen to him expound further on this matter on behalf of the people who sent him here. But I want to say that I think there should be an escalator clause in that international wheat agreement because since it was brought into being farm implements of some types have risen in cost to the farmer by over 60 per cent. Freight rates have increased several times. All this adds to the cost to the farmer producer. While on another occasion I intend to deal much more fully with this international wheat agreement and the hardship that it is going to impose on these wheat producers, I did want to make that point right now, because you do have that matter of control at the present time which, under the present agreement, is going to be the means of creating one of the greatest trimmings that the wheat farmers of the prairie provinces have ever received. You have heard lengthy discussions on other contracts with this country, but I want to make this very clear at this time. The wheat
Cost of Living
farmer right today, according to the market price, is subsidizing the consumers of Canada to the extent of 35 cents a bushel. That is the unfair part of this whole set-up of the government of the day.
I want wholeheartedly to support what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He said that we have a Combines Investigation Act. That is the law of this country, under which the present government refused to act. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), to whom we have given such great powers in another measure, was the man responsible for pushing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) around in regard to the investigation of the flour milling industry of this country. That was distinctly costly both to the wheat farmers of this country and to every man, woman and child who consumes bread in Canada. Despite that fact, the Minister of Trade andi Commerce was able to push the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Justice around. The law of the land was then flouted. It was absolutely disregarded by the Minister of Justice who, I think, should have had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the Prime Minister and to his other colleagues and said: Gentlemen, this is my province. I have taken my oath to be responsible for the law of this land, and if I do not carry that out I will be forced to offer you my resignation. I am sorry that the Minister of Justice did not take that attitude. I think he certainly missed the boat to make himself a great national figure in this country, especially when it was just on the eve of a general election. I think it is entirely too bad, and therefore I want wholeheartedly to endorse all that was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre this afternoon. You have certainly a sorry picture in this country when certain businessmen in the east are raising their prices and some branches of the same businesses in the west increase their prices exactly the same amount.
I come back to a point that has been proven in other sessions, namely, that there is something wrong with the processing of many of the farmers' raw materials in this country. The profits to the middlemen are out of all comparison with what the farmer receives for many of his raw materials, and with what the housewife, either of the farmer or of the urban resident, has to pay for the goods she buys. Comparisons have been made year after year along these lines between such places as Minneapolis and Winnipeg, two comparable points. In many instances the farmer in the Minneapolis area

Cost of Living
will receive more lor his product than the farmer in the Winnipeg area. But when they go out to buy the processed article the housewife in the Minneapolis area can buy it cheaper than can the housewife in the Winnipeg area. Something very faulty is going on in this country and it should be thoroughly investigated. We have an act, if our dictator, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, would allow it to operate, to take care of that sort of thing. We have a vicious set-up to contend with, and the government refuses to take action under this measure today.
There is another point that this brings me to, and that is the suggestion made by my very good friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). Like myself, he has been the reeve of a municipality. I am not sure about the provincial acts in Saskatchewan, but he made a suggestion to the government as to how they might assist old age pensioners. I take second place to no hon. member in this house in regard to old age pensioners. My good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has had more to say on behalf of the old age pensioners than any other two or three members in this house. Nevertheless, I am just as much concerned about old age pensioners as any other hon. member of this house. On many occasions I have talked about the plight of the old age pensioners. But my good and personal friend this afternoon made a suggestion that he thought might require an amendment to the British North America Act, to provide additional benefits for the old age pensioners. He suggested that the municipality might bear 25 per cent of the cost of it, if I am correct. I think that is what he suggested, and that the province should bear 25 per cent of the cost and the federal authorities the additional 50 per cent.


John James Smith: Or 5 per
cent.


James Arthur Ross: He did not use the
expression "5 per cent" when he was talking. It is the principle that I want to deal with right here, because we have been through it. Again I come back to the Minister of Justice. When he was premier of Manitoba in 1948 I presume he had an idea that he was coming to Ottawa, but we ordinary citizens of Manitoba had no idea about it at all. As the premier of Manitoba he was concerned about the plight of the old age pensioners, and on behalf of the provincial government he made an offer to the executive of the Manitoba municipal union that until such time as the British North America Act was amended, or appropriate arrangements

were made in the future, the provincial government would bring in enabling legislation by which they could increase the payment for the old age pensioners by $10 a month, and it would be split two ways, $5 by municipalities and $5 by the provincial government, and the municipality would be responsible for the administration and for seeing who should receive it. I think that was the suggestion made by my hon. friend this afternoon.
Well, strange as it may seem-it seemed very strange to me then-the executive of the Manitoba municipal union accepted the offer, which they thought was a fine offer, subject to the approval of the municipal convention, Which was to meet in Winnipeg some weeks later. I have never heard anything argued more fully in detail than that proposition was by the then premier of Manitoba to the municipal officials. After several hours' deliberation and detailed discussion a vote was taken on that offer. And do you know, the result of that vote was approximately 650 against and 7 for, by those municipal officials. I was personally quite happy about it because of this, and this is the point that I do not follow my good friend on. Ever since my experience in municipal life I have been very concerned about increasing the mounting burdens of taxation on real estate. That in itself is creating untold problems and perplexities for municipal corporations throughout Canada, both urban and rural.


John James Smith: I want the
federal government to pay some.


James Arthur Ross: They are called upon to provide many services now. I can cite neighbours of my own in my own constituency who, through no fault of their own, have lost a crop or revenue from some of the best land in that constituency for the eighth year now. It is the most highly assessed farm property in that area. They are called upon to pay increasing taxation whether any revenue comes off the property or not. It is that matter of principle that I want to deal with, and take issue with my good friend from Moose Mountain on.. As long as I am in public life in any capacity I hope I shall fight to overcome that undue burden which is being imposed on real estate, causing so many difficulties in so many municipalities of this country.
While I am on my feet I want again to reiterate my concern for the welfare of the old age pensioners in this country. I know many of these people personally, and I do not know how they obtain the necessities of life these days under the allowances that they are paid. They do have a great hardship. Rather than the suggestion made by

my good friend this afternoon, I think there is a good deal more logic in the resolution placed on the order paper by my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). I think there is real meat in that resolution, and I hope it is discussed in the house and that we shall have an opportunity to express our views to the government on that resolution.
I think it is most important that worthwhile measures be taken to assist those old age pensioners and many other pensioners throughout the country who are finding it so very difficult. As I said, I had not intended to discuss this matter, but in municipal life or in the federal picture or anywhere else I have not missed an opportunity to set forth the problems confronting the municipal corporations in this country, both urban and rural; and I hope that no legislation is ever put forward by this federal government or by provincial governments which will add to that unfair proposition, of increasing taxation on real estate, those social services which do not entirely belong to the municipalities. I want to make that point very clear. I shall have much more to say about the international wheat agreement at another time. However, I cite that as one example of controls by the government-and very unfair controls-where the wheat producer has no alternative. He is now subsidizing the consumer in Canada. As I have said, he is subsidizing the consumer to the extent of 35 cents a bushel, right today. His problems are increasing from day to day, because his costs of production are increasing in many respects.
Anyone who lives in the prairie provinces, whether he be a city dweller or not, must realize these facts fully. Therefore I think there must be some system of parity granted in Canada during these difficult days of inflation and increasing living costs. I shall certainly support the amendment. I believe it is most timely, and in the interests of the consumer in this country, especially the parents who find it so difficult, in some instances because of frozen incomes, to provide for their families today.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on this subject. I know many members are desirous of winding up the debate; but, so far as I am concerned, I am not particularly anxious to wind it up because I think this is unfinished business since 1945. Unless we settle it somewhere it seems to me we will just have a repetition of what is going on now.
One would judge, from the attitude of the government, that they have made up their
Cost of Living
minds that there are to be no price controls, as such, at this time.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Gillis: Someone says "hear, hear". Well, I consider this the most important debate we have had for a long time, because the cost of living is one of the most disturbing factors in the country.
It is all right to talk about defence, and all that kind of thing. We realize it is necessary to make preparations for defence; but do not let us forget that our main weapon of defence is the people who will produce the wherewithal for defence, and pay the taxes that will provide the weapons. That must be considered also.
The representatives of the organized labour movement in Canada represent a large portion of the industrial workers in this country. They have made their wishes known on many occasions. Only very recently joint representations were made by the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Catholic Federation. In their submission to the government they pointed out in no uncertain terms they thought the time had come when the government should take at least some action to give some indication that the cost of living is going to be held somewhere.
The government has not done this. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has made it clear that, so far as he is concerned, he is speaking for the government and that no action to prevent inflation is going to take place at this time in connection with a system of price controls. I say that an answer of that kind to the representatives of the people who work in the mines and the factories which produce the means for defence, and supply a great portion of the taxation to pay for defence equipment, is an unrealistic answer.
While the cost of living statistics may not be as accurate as they could or should be, nevertheless they are an indication of what the cost of living actually is. I say that the figure 179-7, as the over-all cost of living index, does not reflect actually what is being imposed upon the average citizen. We get some idea what the average person maintaining a home is up against when we take the food index figure of 233-9, because 80 per cent of the money spent in the home of the person in the average income group is spent for food. That is the figure that should be used.
People see the cost of living climbing from day to day, and the stand has been taken by the government that nothing is going to

Cost of Living
be done. This is discouraging. It amuses me to hear hon. members say that they do not want price controls, because if they would stop and think they would realize they have price fixing now, in respect of nearly every commodity entering their homes. However, that price fixing is done by people who are not responsible to the Canadian people generally or to the House of Commons. Large corporations across this country do not ask the permission of anyone when they want to step up a price.
For instance, take a look at the recent price increase in new automobiles. That increase certainly was not warranted by the 5 per cent tax imposed by the government last September. But prices have skyrocketed, whether we like it or not. Then we see overnight an artificial shortage of butter, and overnight 15 or 20 cents per pound is added to the price. Who is fixing that price? It is very definitely fixed.
We see irresponsible price fixing right across the country today in connection with practically every commodity one is compelled to buy.
We are asking for a system of responsible controls, and we are prepared to have the Canadian government institute the machinery which would be responsible to parliament in connection with the fixing of prices in this time of stress and concern. This process of getting all the traffic will bear and supporting the system of price fixing we now have is certainly not my understanding of a proper system of responsible government for the Canadian people.
Let me emphasize that hon. members who say they do not want price controls, that they are hard to administer and all that sort of thing, must balance that argument against the argument that prices are already fixed in practically every commodity. It is a matter of determining whether we will continue that kind of system which can create overnight artificial shortages and bring about a skyrocketing of prices, without consultation with anybody, or whether we want to hand the problem over to the government so that it may be handled as it was handled during the war-and very successfully.
That is what we have to ascertain. Apparently the government has not faced up to the question.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: For tomorrow consideration had been given to the possibility of dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Defence-both tomorrow

and Friday. But, on considering the matter, it has been found that that would not be convenient for hon. members of the house, and that more than a few hours' notice would be required before opening a discussion on the estimates of the defence department.
In view of that I think it would probably suit the convenience of hon. members if we continued and tried to complete the debate which stands as the first order on the order paper, the present debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 28 that on Thursdays and Fridays Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair to go into committee of supply, without question put. If I had the unanimous consent of the house I would move that on Thursday, tomorrow, and Friday, the next day, if necessary, standing order 28 be suspended so that the debate on government order No. 1 on today's order paper may be first concluded and four additional departments called for the first time, not for the purpose of proceeding with them but for the purpose of having them before the committee as would happen on the conclusion of this debate, and then to proceed with the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Green:: Thursday and Friday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The first thing we would do would be to try to complete this debate on the motion of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), as leader of the house, to go into committee of supply and the amendment of the leader of the opposition. That debate being concluded, unless there were further discussions before the motion could be put to go into committee of supply, upon that motion being resolved the four additional departments that were mentioned originally for Monday would first be called and the items allowed to stand. Then we would proceed with the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the transport estimates are to be considered on both Thursday and Friday.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If we got along rapidly enough, the idea would be to do something more on Friday, and we would announce Thursday night what it would be. I would imagine that we would take all of tomorrow to conclude this debate and the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport. If they were not concluded we would continue with them on Friday, and announce either the estimates of the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture to follow the completion of the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport.

The effect of this motion of course would be spent when the question of going into supply on the motion made on Monday was resolved.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I will support the suggestion of the Prime Minister. In view of the nature of the debate now taking place, it would seem satisfactory to me that it should proceed to a conclusion. Under the circumstances it would seem obvious that adequate notice should be given with respect to the opening of the Department of National Defence in view of the number of hon. members who are anxious to deal with that very important subject. I would hope that unanimous consent would be given to the motion made by the Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on this proposal. I want to say that I am a reasonable person, and certainly I am ready to agree with respect to a part of what the Prime Minister suggests. As to another part of it, however, he has not yet convinced me. It could be argued that it is desirable that the present debate should be continued tomorrow. The part of the Prime Minister's request that I accept is that unanimous consent be given to suspending the rule so that the debate may be carried on on Thursday and Friday, which is otherwise irregular. Then he goes on and asks that when we get into committee of supply the four departments which were named for last Monday should be opened. I am not just being stubborn about this. The fact of the matter is that this is one of the few but very important provisions in the rules of the house whereby private members of parliament can bring their views as effectively as they can to the attention of the government. We do it not only by our speeches but also by the fact that we hold more or less of a whiphand with respect to getting into committee of supply, where money is voted. Before the Prime Minister rises to his feet, I am going to suggest that we reach a compromise. I will give unanimous consent to the first part of his suggestion but not to the calling of four departments. How about compromising on two?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Why should it be only two? The motion was made for the purpose of going into committee of supply and calling four departments. It has been debated, and it will have been as fully debated as any motion to go into committee of supply that I can remember in the several sessions that I have been here. It would seem to me that there would be no serious inconvenience in that because there will not be another opportunity of opening departments next week. We expect the debate on the budget to proceed next week. Of all the departments there are
Business of the House
only four that have been placed before the committee of supply up to this time. I do not think that hon. members would be forgoing any right because normally when this motion is disposed of four departments would be called. If it is preferable to dispose of it on Thursday or Friday we would like to do so if it will not prevent it from having the same effect as if it were disposed of on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister says that normally the effect of this motion would have been to get into committee of supply and open four departments. Normally such a motion could not be disposed of except on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. Therefore since the house has debated it up until this time, normally-in other words, without unanimous consent-it cannot be proceeded with again until another Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. I suggest that, since the Prime Minister is asking us to give unanimous consent to upsetting that part of the rule, he should compromise on the other part. I have met him more than halfway, and some of my friends over here think I have gone too far.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Some of my friends think I have gone too far, and that I should not have suggested' that we continue this debate. I thought it would be convenient for most members if it were continued. If it is the desire of the house that we abide by the rule, I will not submit the motion. If it cannot have the same effect as if it were disposed' of on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, let us wait for a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday to dispose of it.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to add that the next time a motion is made to go into committee of supply we should not have in mind four departments. One is quite sufficient.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When the hon. member becomes the leader of the house he will determine any announcements of what he will ask the house to do. We announced that we were going to ask to go into committee of supply and open four departments.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, this happens to be one case in which the Prime Minister will bow to the will of the opposition.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: He will not bow to the
will of the opposition but will conform to the rules of the house.


John Horne Blackmore: The Prime Minister has no authority to introduce more than one department unless the opposition says he has.
i938

Business of the House


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member would add to my knowledge of the rules if he would cite to me the rule on which he bases that assertion.


John Horne Blackmore: The Prime Minister will add to mine if he will cite the rule under which he is proposing to call four departments. One is quite sufficient.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I take it that it is not agreeable to the house that we deal with this matter tomorrow as it would be dealt with on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would agree to two departments but not to four.


John Horne Blackmore: I only agree to one.


James Arthur Ross: What is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will take up the estimates of the Department of Transport, and if we conclude we will take agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 12, 1951